I Nominate Harry [LINK]

There has been a growing scandal centered around the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU), an important center of research into the theory of human-influenced climate change, a.k.a. anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Most importantly, CRU maintains the Global Climate Dataset, the raw historical weather station data that forms the primary source for climate change estimates generated by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

On November 19, someone, either a hacker or (more probably) a disgruntled CRU insider, surreptitiously posted a 65-megabyte archive, titled FOI2009.zip, for "Freedom of Information." It features a selection of emails from among CRU's principal scientists dating back to 1996, along with much associated data, code, and documentation, all of which are now being widely scrutinized. Amidst denunciations that the files were illegally obtained, several of the scientists involved have corroborated that many are genuine, and there have as yet been no challenges to the authenticity of any. I believe it unlikely at this point that any of the material will turn out to have been fabricated.

So far, the emails have generated the most comment. Writing for Pajamas Media, Charlie Martin identifies three distinct scandals they reveal, and provides supporting links to specific files for each assertion:

The emails suggest the authors co-operated covertly to ensure that only papers favorable to CO₂-forced AGW were published, and that editors and journals publishing contrary papers were punished. They also attempted to "discipline" scientists and journalists who published skeptical information.

The emails evidence a remarkable hostility directed towards climate skeptics. In one case, the death of a skeptic is described as "cheering news."

The emails suggest that the authors manipulated and "massaged" the data to strengthen the case in favor of unprecedented CO₂-forced AGW, and to suppress their own data if it called AGW into question.

In particular, the emails show a good deal of concern over how to obscure a recent worldwide cooling trend, along with a period 1,000 years ago called the "medieval warm period" in which temperatures rose, with no influence from carbon dioxide, to the point that Greenland could support agriculture.

The emails suggest that the authors co-operated (perhaps the word is "conspired") to prevent data from being made available to other researchers through either data archiving requests or through the Freedom of Information Acts of both the U.S. and the UK.

In particular, the Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, who publishes the Climate Audit blog, has repeatedly tried to obtain data from CRU, and has repeatedly been turned down. McIntyre was instrumental in discrediting the "hockey stick" graph that purported to show a sudden upward spike in recent temperatures, a graph that featured prominently in Al Gore's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.

 

No doubt, the revelations from the CRU files represent a major scientific scandal that should end some careers in disgrace and perhaps even generate a handful of criminal convictions. It should certainly prompt a thorough review of the current state and quality of climate science across the board. But it would be a mistake to focus too closely on the bad behavior of particular scientists. Even if they had behaved admirably in all other respects, it is now becoming apparent as well that the overall quality of the CRU data is itself quite poor. The likelihood that the debate over massively consequential policy proposals, such as the American "cap-and-trade" bill, might rest even in part on such poor data, is nothing short of alarming.

The blogger Devil's Kitchen posted an extended summary of the contents of one of the files found among the archive's non-email documents directory. The post mainly reproduces and summarizes the highly critical (and salty) comments of one Asimov posted to tickerforum.org. The file in question is called HARRY_READ_ME.txt, a very long text file (15,000 lines, three quarters of a megabyte) that represents a log written by a CRU computer programmer named Ian Harris ("Harry") detailing the extraordinary efforts he went through from 2006-2009 to make sense of CRU's set of raw weather station data.

Mr. Ian "Harry" Harris, "data manipulator"

While the technical content of the file is often esoteric, what comes across very clearly is just how out of his depth Harry was in figuring out the "piles and piles of undocumented and inconsistent datasets," and how ad hoc his solutions were. At one point Harry declares flatly: "There is no uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found." Jumping to random points within this file, you will find many such red-flag statements. Not only can CRU researchers not provide others with the tools to reproduce their results, they cannot themselves reproduce them. Harry's unfortunate and highly questionable task appears to have been to produce Fortran code that takes raw weather station data, matching it to a set of already published results that were produced by some other undocumented process. The format of this varying input, such as the time and place of each sample value, is often a complete mystery. The text is extraordinary in the series of bald assumptions and seat-of-the-pants hacks it reveals. It's not too strong to say that some of CRU's global temperature records were simply made up.

But consider the context in which this data is used. Predictions over future climate change are the result of sophisticated computer models that represent a complex set of variables, ranging from the effects of cloud cover to ocean circulations. There is a great deal of debate over how best to represent these variables. As a highly complex nonlinear system, these climate variables have to be calculated for relatively tiny areas across the Earth, with each set of results affecting surrounding areas dynamically as the model progresses. Given the complexity of the assumptions that go into making such calculations, consider what happens when what you should be able to assume is your most solid set of input data, the actual historical record of past temperature data worldwide, turns out to have been the product of questionable processes. As a result, it is no wonder that CRU has in the past refused to share its data.

For now, I nominate Harry as the most likely source of the leaked CRU documents. To research the unknown process whose results he was trying to match probably meant he had to review a wide range of past correspondence from the CRU server. Reading his log file, you get the strong sense that he understands his own limitations in comprehending the data, and that the quality of his work suffers as a result. You get the strong sense that Harry has a conscience. But then, it could be anyone. I'm just guessing. You know, making it up as I go.

Has 20 Years of Political Correctness Taught Us Nothing? [LINK]

The host of NPR's On Point show, Tom Ashbrook, introduces Susan Shirk, in today's discussion concerning "a Chinese perspective from Shanghai" on President Obama's visit:

From Lincoln, Nebraska, we're joined by Susan Shirk, professor at the School of International Relations and Pacific Studies at the University of California, San Diego. She oversaw U.S.-China policy at the State Department from 1997 to 2000, and she founded the Northeast Asia Cooperation Dialogue, a forum that right now is sponsoring high-level talks between North Korea, the United States and others over Korean peninsula nuclear issues. Her latest book is “China: Fragile Superpower.” ...

Ashbrook's first question to Ms. Shirk concerns whether China still sees the United States as the #1 world power. Shirk's first utterance of any substance, starting at the 3:10 mark:

Well, I think Asia still respects the United States tremendously, but there certainly are some chinks in our armor…

It's Contagious! [LINK]

Last night, CNN aired an argument over whether the Ft. Hood shooter, Dr. Hasan, might have suffered from PTSD after treating numerous soldiers who suffered from PTSD. This segment gave me a touch of PTSD, and is likely to do the same for you, especially after the 3:40 mark:

Tomorrow, Mariah Carey! Buford, Illinois, you're on the air!

Because People Are Starving in Africa, Don't Finish Your Peas [LINK]

Jennifer Aniston explains her regimen:

"I take a three-minute shower," she told Elizabeth Rogers and Thomas Kostigen, authors of The Green Book. She even brushes her teeth while she's in there. "Every two minutes in the shower uses as much water as a person in Africa uses for everything in their life for a whole day!"

(via Althouse)

NPR Whitewashes ACORN Scandals [LINK]

My letter to NPR:

I am perfectly willing to believe that ACORN does some good work that is deserving of open praise, but Pam Fessler's sympathetic report on the organization strained my patience to the limit. It referred obliquely to "videos" made by two undercover conservative activists, and an account of the pair being turned away at one office, without mentioning their success at getting much the same set of damning footage at no fewer than five different offices, certainly no fluke. It refers politely to the "sketchy advice" the pair was able to solicit from ACORN workers, but did nothing to outline the wide range of criminal activities ACORN workers revealed themselves willing to facilitate. I give credit to Fessler in noting ACORN's embezzlement scandal, but it would have added some perspective to note its new $5 million price tag, up from $1 million. Listeners would have also benefitted from more details on the range of ongoing allegations of voter registration fraud and illegal use of federal funds for explicit political activity. Some of the time Fessler might have used to present such useful contextual information was taken up instead by a tape of one staff member openly weeping at the thought ACORN was being attacked, as if for no reason. Please, don't insult my intelligence.

Consider if several congressmen were caught in a similar undercover sting. Would NPR produce a report reminding us how some congressmen are not corrupt? Please.

---

UPDATE: About them being roundly turned away at one office, the one in Philadelphia, we've apparently been misinformed.

Fugitive: The Sequel [LINK]

Tommy Lee Jones should be in talks right now about the film treatment of the Polanski bust.

"But I'm a genius film director..."

"I don't care!"

"But the girl's alright with it now and doesn't want me prosecuted..."

"I don't care!"

"But there may have been irregularities in the original prosecution..."

"I don't care!"

"But most Europeans think this is silly..."

"I don't care!"

"But lots of important people wanted to see me receive this award..."

"I don't care!"

"But wasn't it considerate of me to give her a bu-fu to avoid a pregnancy?"

"I don't care!"

Terrorist's Apprentice [LINK]

The news that Moammar Qaddafi planned to pitch a tent at the estate of fellow obnoxious attention fiend Donald Trump got me to think of what a perfect scenario it would be for a reality television show:

So, Ahmed, I really like your idea of the targeted assassinations of rival clan leaders, and especially making it look like the Mossad is behind the violence. That was definitely a nice, creative touch. The New York Times would definitely go for that, I'm sure. And it totally nails some basic requirements: before you can be effective in projecting terror outwards, you gotta, gotta always consolidate your power. Can't tell you how many guys come in here with all sorts of gee-whiz ideas, but forgetting to terrorize their own people first. I'm not saying baby steps, don't be bold, but a lot of this is just basic due diligence that should be obvious to anyone who's been in the business.

So I like all that, and it's good stuff we can definitely work with. But I have to say it lost a lot in the presentation. You gotta always pay attention to the details. First of all, totally inappropriate to come in here with all those PowerPoint slides. Doesn't work in the tent anyway. The lighting's all off. I can barely see them, and you should have known that running the power supply all the way from the guard room would be such a distraction. So that was a problem.

But mostly it's just a basic matter of time. I'm a busy man, and if you're going to make me a pitch, it's gotta be BOOM-BOOM-BOOM. Understand? And Moammar here, he's got a speech to deliver to the General Assembly in an hour and a half. Means he's got to be on the Hutchinson River in thirty minutes, tops. And that's with a police escort. So don't waste our time with all the boring analysis of the comparative casualty counts, and being on the defensive because you're not going to target a whole city for destruction. Casualty counts mean nothing these days, anyway, when what you're going for is media impact. Doesn't take a lot of casualties to get a big payoff. And I gotta level with you. Dirty bombs and biological agents? I've seen that, I see it all the time as a matter of fact, and it's a whole different animal. You don't always have to compete on that level. Don't even waste time talking about it, is my advice to you.

And frankly, there's not as much of a market for all that stuff right now, anyway, so there's no point in letting it muddy up your pitch. Know your audience. Moammar here's definitely not interested in doing any of that right now. I mean, the time is not right. Market conditions. Nothing but trouble all around. You can see the sort of image he's trying to project, giving up his WMD program and all that. He's definitely not going to be blowing up any planes or discos this time around, so you gotta realize you have a leg up on your competitors. You're already on the same page, and you've got something appealing already in the bag, so why not then recognize that and maximize your advantage as part of your pitch? The guys you're initially competing against are not the Jews or the Americans, they're standing right next to you. They're the ones you gotta be watching out for.

By getting all defensive and trying to measure up to what these other guys are doing, what you're telling me is that deep down, you're not willing to differentiate yourself, and you don't really believe your idea is a good one. And when the rubber hits the road, what I want most is terrorists I know I can rely on. Who'll go that extra distance, and who believe in what they're doing. And yes, who'll blow themselves up if that's what's called for. But sometimes a good strategist with a good overview is worth a whole lot more than a delivery man, and I've seen some definite potential for you on that front. But bottom line, you gotta show up for the game, and to be perfectly honest, you don't strike me as smart enough to realize you might be bringing something more valuable to the table. I don't know, maybe you need to be a delivery man. If you're just gonna be some insecure kid off the street and aren't willing to say, hey, this is me, I've got a lot to offer, I'm going to be a valuable asset to you and your organization, maybe that's what's in the cards for you. That's your decision. I can't make it for you. Maybe you can go work for one of Ahmadinejad's operations and see where that gets you. [laughter]

So, after after some time to consider the matter, and after consulting with my colleagues, I have to ask you to pack up your suitcase bomb. You're fired. You can leave via the front gate, or if you choose to go the other route, you'll be escorted out by a number of virgins. I don't know, are they really? Maybe. Whatever. Thank you. Goodbye.

If you had to read on piece on health care reform... [LINK]

More than just "required reading," I think this piece should undercut and crowd out all other articles on health care reform, leaving it the only one remaining alternative available.

Rep. Wilson Shows Poor Taste [LINK]

Shame on Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) for shouting an accusation at the president last night. Follow tradition of British parliament. When being lied to, an inarticulate murmur of disapproval will do.

Czar Crazy [LINK]

My letter to The New Republic:

John McWhortle is on the right track when he suggests the "trutherism" espoused by Van Jones may represent "a tantrum from people out of power," a "gestural, performative ... animus" on par with the right's recent overreaction to the botched publicity leading up to Obama's address to American students. But it's unfathomable why McWhortle would then consider not only Jones's resignation, but his very repudiation of trutherist ideas inappropriate.

McWhortle says the idea the Bush administration orchestrated the Sept. 11 attacks is "hardly unknown among people of the left," which should give us all pause. Leftists may not actually believe that idea, McWhortle suggests, but are willing to give voice to it because being out of power renders them half mad with hysteria. In either case, placing anyone, left or right, who exhibits such behavior in a position of responsibility (even a lowly "czar") is simply a bad idea. You want people who can think clearly and whose perspectives are consistently grounded in reality. Is that too much to ask?

Of course, why should the paranoia of Van Jones be so casually accommodated, but not Glenn Beck's or Obama's ed-speech protestors?

Renewing Cash for Clunkers [LINK]

I will miss Cash for Clunkers. How about we give people cash for every bad public policy idea they turn in, so that those ideas can never be used again? To qualify, they would have to suppress the economy, feature significant internal contradictions, upend centuries of common sense, or feature berserk incentives that in short order make them spin out of control. We can bury them all at Yucca Mountain.

Blackwater and the CIA's "Unsuccessful" Assassination Program [LINK]

My latest letter to the Globe regarding a piece reprinted from the New York Times:

A report on Blackwater's involvement in a controversial and now defunct CIA program designed to assassinate top Al Qaeda operatives says the agency "spent several million dollars on the program, which did not capture or kill any terrorist suspects." While nominally true, casual readers may well conclude this money was abjectly wasted, and would find it difficult to grasp an essential point. No part of this program ever became operational, so the fact that it didn't kill any Al Qaeda members is hardly remarkable. Similarly, the statement that Blackwater helped the CIA with "planning, training, and surveillance" implies some other set of activities than those few. The story's headline goes even further in suggesting something might have actually happened: "Blackwater had key role in '04 secret mission."

It's not hard to understand why there would be so little acknowledgment that the program never made it past the planning stage, because then the juicy controversy about it not having been revealed to Congress would evaporate. To the extent there is any acknowledgment, the report implies some controversy over allowing "unaccountable" third-party contractors any involvement in such planning. However, let me express my gratitude at the outcome, in which relatively few CIA agents were diverted from their work of both planning and implementing other programs that ultimately were successful in decimating Al Qaeda.

Low Unemployment in D.C. [LINK]

Something is wrong with this picture. Indeed.com is a job search engine that has an interesting feature comparing job prospects in different regions of the country. The ratio of job postings to unemployed is twice as good in Washington D.C. than the next-ranked metropolitan area, Jacksonville, Florida. Click to enlarge:

Of course, Detroit provides another major outlier on the other end:

The Problem with Cash-for-Clunkers [LINK]

It's amusing how the media generally assumes the popularity of the cash-for-clunkers program means it would have been a good thing had only the program been well administered. An economist might see that popularity as a sign of inefficiency: a subsidy to manufacture unnecessary new cars, whose environmental impacts may exceed the marginal amount of pollution generated by the clunker. It gets more absurd the more optimism you apply to future trends. We keep hearing we're on the verge of all sorts of unprecedented boosts in automotive efficiency. If that were the case, keeping all those clunkers on the road for as long as possible, and not retiring them artificially early, would maximize the environmental benefit when it inevitably comes time to switch to a new vehicle.